E.S.Y., Inc. V. Scottsdale Ins. Co., No. 15
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. 15-21349-CIV-ALTONAGA/O’Sullivan E.S.Y., INC., et al., Plaintiffs, v. SCOTTSDALE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. ___________________________/ ORDER THIS CAUSE came before the Court on Defendant, Scottsdale Insurance Company’s (“Defendant[’s]”) Motion for Final Summary Judgment (“Defendant’s Motion”) [ECF No. 21], filed August 18, 2015, along with an Amended Statement of Undisputed Facts . (“Defendant’s SUF”) [ECF No. 34], filed September 14, 2015. On September 2, 2015, Plaintiffs, E.S.Y., Inc. (“E.S.Y.”) and Yariv Shaked (“Shaked”) (together, “Plaintiffs”), filed a Second Amended Response . and Cross Motion for Summary Judgment (“Plaintiffs’ Motion”) [ECF No. 30], along with a Statement of Undisputed Facts . (“Plaintiffs’ SUF”) [ECF No. 31]. Defendant filed a Memorandum in Opposition . (“Defendant’s Response”) [ECF No. 35]. Neither party filed a reply brief. The Court has carefully reviewed the parties’ written submissions; the Complaint . (“Complaint”) [ECF No. 1-1]; the record; and applicable law. CASE NO. 15-21349-CIV-ALTONAGA/O’Sullivan I. BACKGROUND Defendant issued Plaintiffs1 a commercial general liability insurance policy (the “Policy”) providing, among other things, coverage for “advertising injury” liability, including defense of claims with the requisite nexus to “advertising injury.” (Def.’s SUF ¶¶ 18–19; Pls.’ SUF ¶¶ 11–14). Exist, Inc. (“Exist”), an apparel designer, later filed suit against Plaintiffs in this District in case number 14-62429-CIV- BLOOM (the “Exist Suit”), which has since been administratively closed upon the parties’ settlement. (See Def.’s SUF ¶¶ 1, 6; Exist Suit [ECF No. 88]). Plaintiffs contend Defendant failed to fulfill its duty under the Policy to defend them in the Exist Suit.
[Show full text]